So this dude gets frustrated with repetitive, reactive data entry and then goes all Hezbollah? Remember that, folks, when you're peeved at the supermarket checker because they're not as fast as you think they should be.

He's missing one very, very important thing. Real-life suicide bombers don't get extra lives to come back under the same account.

The mindset of a terrorist knows they're going to die- forever- and still does a suicide bombing.

Plus, this guy gets to keep his "points".

The analogy of a suicde bomber in a video game would only work if your account was destroyed when you die... and you so badly wanted to kill one person, that you'd be willing to give up your account for that person's death.

downstairs:He's missing one very, very important thing. Real-life suicide bombers don't get extra lives to come back under the same account.

The mindset of a terrorist knows they're going to die- forever- and still does a suicide bombing.

Plus, this guy gets to keep his "points".

The analogy of a suicde bomber in a video game would only work if your account was destroyed when you die... and you so badly wanted to kill one person, that you'd be willing to give up your account for that person's death.

Not really.

The reward has to be as good as the potential loss. If by sacrificing my game to get back at someone, I would be rewarded with 72 new XBox 720's when they came out, then you'd have an appropriate comparison.

Also, the player whom I'm bombing must also be working toward a similar goal, as in if his hard work and climb up the ranking ladder would also reward him with a XBox 720.

The comparison is spot on, in terms of risk vs reward. Little to be gained, little to be lost.

Also, he so elegantly and correctly illustrates as to why many of my friends and I in the "real world" with "real lives" don't play Halo 3 MP. But the 11- to 18-year-old demographic is obviously one with enough purchasing power that the powers that be don't really care.

And neither do I. I'll take my single-player Half-Life 2 and emulated single-player Chrono Trigger over your XBox Live any day. At least then I don't have some prepubescent 12-year-old screaming obscenities at me and questioning my sexuality because I used the wrong attack button on the creature I was fighting.

downstairs:He's missing one very, very important thing. Real-life suicide bombers don't get extra lives to come back under the same account.

The mindset of a terrorist knows they're going to die- forever- and still does a suicide bombing.

Actually, suicide bombers don't think they're going to die, at least not in the way most rational people do. They don't think they're going to stop existing. They think they are transporting themselves to a much better place.

One of many reasons religion is dangerous. People who don't believe in magic are less likely to think of reasons to throw their life away.

downstairs:The analogy of a suicde bomber in a video game would only work if your account was destroyed when you die... and you so badly wanted to kill one person, that you'd be willing to give up your account for that person's death.

If by "that person's death" you mean he would also lose his account then we would have a some what even handed analogy.

The only thing the writer learned from Halo is the standard excuse for sucking at multiplayer. Always remember: you don't have time to sit around and get better, therefore anyone better than you is a loser who sits in his basement playing Halo all the time.

This tactic only works when the person you've turned and started to run towards to doesn't have a shotgun or other powerful close range weapon. Sure, AR vs AR this is a tactic that will usually lend itself to a kill.

I challenge you to try this shiat on someone running around with a shotty sniper combo that knows what they are doing.

Haven't played Halo 3, but from Battlefield 2 experience, I can see it as a good tactic to get the enemy to change their tactics.

In playing BF2, I used to fill a jeep up with tons of plastic explosives, get in it, and then drive to an enemy base where players would be sitting waiting for stuff to re-spawn.

Drive that sumbiatch right there, hop out (if possible) and then detonate. Would get like 5-10 dumbasses at a time. Eventually they would catch on and mine the surrounding area, but by that time they are defensive and it's a matter of attrition at that point.

It took until Halo 3? Seriously, I remember this from Quake 1 Team Fortress. The whole "Hold a grenade for too long," thing was a real good way to stop scouts from getting by you on certain maps. Pretty much SOP for me as an entry guard on 2fort5 was to hold a grenade when a scout was coming out. I'd shoot rockets at him, of course, but in the event he could dodge those I usually had the grenade well timed so that it'd detonate right about when he was running by me. That'd do the trick. If it took me out (didn't always in that game, different classes had different amounts of health) oh well. So long as he didn't get the flag out, I'd succeeded.

Blowing yourself up to take out an enemy has always been something in various shooters, I thought. Sometimes it is just worth it, since in a game all you do is wait a few seconds, then get to play again. Bit more serious in the real world and all.

That is the dumbest, shallowest article I've read in Wired, which is well known for it's dumb, shallow articles.

Uhh... Golf clap, I guess.

The state of game journalism has been set back years by that.

Author experiences catharsis with suicide bombers by playing Halo 3. Will also try to come to understanding of modern office life by being a chicken in an industrial hen house, and the tragedy of breast cancer by sawing the tits off a mannequin. Good on you, mate.

You might get some vague, casual insight, but not so much as if you spent some time... I dunno... THINKING?

I use that tactic when someone is hording a powerful melee weapon, like the sword or hammer. Being dead isn't a strong deterrent, as long as you get that kill.

In the real world, I think his point is valid. If one side has overwhelming superiority with approved or conventional tactics, the other side will find something outside the box. The only way to stop the terrorists is to drain the supply of disaffected teenaged boys. Probably through getting them started downloading porn.

What definites a "legitimate" tactic? Terrorists are not soldiers in the strict sense of the word. They do not belong to a single, well regulated army which would engage in combat with set rules and behaviour.

If I (being somebody not in a regular military force) want to inflict damage on you, take action which is intended to cause you to take damage, then my tactics are legitimate.

Depending on what actions I take, they could be called immoral, or innefectual, but the legitimacy of the tactic is only definable by whether or or not it is part of my overall strategy, rather than by any outside ruleset.

I think we need to concentrate less on the specific tactics (and the status of their legitimacy), and more on why said tactics are seen as worth employing.

Fellows:The reward has to be as good as the potential loss. If by sacrificing my game to get back at someone, I would be rewarded with 72 new XBox 720's when they came out, then you'd have an appropriate comparison.

72 is incidently enough the number of X-Box 720s you'd need to have a chance of getting one that works for more than a week.